Quote from: CRKrueger;971448Which edition?  2nd Edition being more complicated than any form of Exalted is just laughable. Period.  Full-blown 3rd granted got practically Gurps: Vehicles crazy.  4th/5th - completely different game I wouldn't piss on if it were on fire.

I'm pretty sure I've seen only 4th edition, though. If 2nd edition is that different, what I said about the mechanics wouldn't apply to it.

Quote"I don't like the level of crunch" is a piss-poor reason for declaring a disconnect between setting and system.

It is, if you expect the system to deliver on fast and furious gameplay.

QuoteYou mean besides Lifestyle, Contact and Organization rules so that PCs have ways to gain Contacts, improve relationships and actually become members of organizations?

...weird. I don't remember ever using such rules. Had the GM houseruled them out?
It's possible. You know what, I'm going to retract what I said about Shadowrun's mechanics until I get a new glimpse on the book itself, so I wouldn't work with what we played (which might have been influenced by the GM liking action sequences). I think I can borrow someone's book for a while.
The setting is my bigger issue either way, but at least I'd know whether I've spouted a bunch of nonsense about the mechanics.

QuoteYou realize you sound just like the people who claim D&D only supports Dungeoncrawling...you know those people you usually mock?

Maybe. It would be unfortunate if that was the case, but we'll have to see.

QuoteSo...which is it?  Are you demanding more rules or are you not demanding more rules?

Less rules, and those remaining to be different...well, if my memory of them is exact and complete, at least.

QuoteAre you demanding more published modules with a different scenario structure or are you not demanding more modules?

I'd like to see more modules with a different scenario structure, yes. Just so the Shadowrun fans would be more amenable to playing something that's not preparing, executing and dealing with the fallout of a run.

QuoteAren't you the guy that makes up a whole world on the fly

Yes.

Quoteevery week

No, my campaigns usually last much longer:D!

Quoteand can effortlessly convert Fiasco into Phoenix Command so there's no point in even talking about system differences?

And I see you've been taking rhetoric lessons from Pundit...no point answering this.

QuoteNow you expect me to believe this same guy can't take all the detail the setting provides you and run Yakuza without rules or explicit guidelines in the Core Book? (Yes, there's an Organized Crime supplement book too. )

Of course I can, Greenie;). I'd use Cyberpunk 2020 or Fates Worse Than Death RPG, but that's besides the point.

The problem is, I sometimes want to play. As it has happened, sometimes I want to play so much I'm even willing to put up with the setting of Cyberpunk.
If, after that, I get to do only runs, runs every week, with the argument that "the game is made to do that, as the adventures prove", I feel...cheated out of an opportunity;).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;971530I think a lot of referees and players alike sort of forget to think of implications.

For instance:  My city of Ram's Horn is on a navigable river.  There are docks and warehouses.

Where people carry goods by water, you WILL have pirates.  Shall we fight them, join them, or become them?

Furthermore, if there are tariffs, there will be smugglers.  Same thing.

You don't need to know anything about the setting, just a little about the real world and human nature.

Well, you still need to know the lawlessness level. Because the pirates might be the last of their kind, and bound to be pending soon, or they might be a force to be reckoned with:).

Quote from: S'mon;971602Victorian England was light on barge pirates. Some settings are too peaceful to make standard adventurer plots likely. These can work well for horror stories though.

But there were pirates in Victorian times, just elsewhere.
And you don't need your adventurer plots to be of the standard variety;).

Quote from: AsenRG;972100I'm pretty sure I've seen only 4th edition, though.

[Samuel Jackson]"Shit, Asen, that's all you had to say."[/Samuel Jackson]

Thing to rermember about Shadowrun is:
1st is a wonderful, glorious, somewhat unplayable mess.
2nd, cleaned up and expanded a bit, is "Golden Age" Shadowrun.  You want what made the game what it is, pick up a copy of second and run some of the published adventures.
3rd is kind of like D&D 3e - it eventually disappeared up it's own ass into rules minutiae.
4th is kind of like D&D 4e, ie. Not-Shadowrun. Although it's even worse. Different company, different people, not even the same setting really as none of the original worldbuilders are involved, and fundamentally different system.
5th is kind of like D&D5e in that is still running on a lot of 4th assumptions and rules, but unlike 5e in that is doesn't attempt to hide that fact, makes no attempt to return to what made the game to begin with and still is, well IMNSHO, complete and utter shite.  Frank Trollman isn't always wrong.

FASA Shadowrun vs. Catalyst Shadowrun is far more of a difference than TSR vs. WotC D&D.

A great wailing and pearl-cluthcing will now commence from certain quarters I'm sure, but...you've never played Shadowrun.

I feel Shadowrun is a neat system at it's core of "pool of d6 vs target number". The problem is the subsystems, which are super slow and unnecessary complex. They should have kept the core and use the remaining energy to structure the "life of a scoundrel" aspect just like Blades in the Dark or The Sprawl do. But then Shadowrun is a child of the 80s where the unnecessary complexity was the norm, and mechanized "gaming structures" was a rarity (which only attests to Pendragon ahead of time design).

Quote from: Skarg;971639It seems to me that ways to "foster player creativity" and interest in doing things other that wait for the next train on the GM's railroad to glory, include just having your game clearly work dynamically and have player choices be mostly what determines what happens. When players observe that doing things, particularly things that aren't just waiting and responding predictably to GM prompts, leads to other logical and interesting things happening (and applying active thought to situations tends to have good results), in ways that are unscripted and make some sense and are fun, then at least some players will be more awake and active and creative and interested, and the ones who aren't at least enjoy the show more. One can also have the smart and interesting NPCs naturally tend to be more interested and friendly with the smart and creative PCs, and/or take more advantage of the predictable PCs.

This. One thousand times this.

I think the tabletop roleplaying as a medium has specificities that are totally different from other media like books, cinema or videogames. Someone bringing his pet-story for an audience is totally legit for a movie, but problematic on a tabletop game where everybody is supposed to be actively interacting with the game most of the time.